a/ It's naive to assume market won't work in this one case and people will happily pass ten percent of their money to support staff just because their work is important. What can be competed away will be competed away.
b/ Open source works well for very complicated pieces of software.
c/ As we saw in the case of Ethereum, assuming you can buy due diligence with money alone is a mistake.
Open source works well for very complicated pieces of software, except for complicated cryptography; the material used in ZCash was developed in papers as recent as 4 yrs ago. Rest assured that most programmers understand nothing about the underlying SNARKs.
I am a cofounder of a company in this space and three people in my company are in a position to understand it very well. For example Sergio who also blogs here: https://bitslog.wordpress.com
I don't want to see a specific keyword; all I'm saying is that there is nothing on that website indicating any great knowledge of theoretical cryptography. For instance: no proofs, formal definitions, nothing. Not even links to other websites hosting such things.
I really feel frustrated by your lack of search/manual-crawling/link-clicking/understanding capabilities. He was the official security reviewer of Bitcoin and Ethereum. Then some extra references so you can continue your own search:
I am not doubting Sergio's security expertise, but security expertise != theoretical cryptography expertise. Crypto requires providing clear definitions and proofs of security. All I see in the first two links are adhoc constructions, with heuristic arguments for security; no security definitions, no reductions, no proofs.
The last link is more formal, and talks about models of computation, but once again does not provide any reductions.
b/ Open source works well for very complicated pieces of software.
c/ As we saw in the case of Ethereum, assuming you can buy due diligence with money alone is a mistake.